3rd question : Can you define farm and landscape scale?
Farm level – managed by the farmers themselves (terracing and small structures). Landscape – construction of reservoirs
Farm – smallest mgt. unit. Landscape is the collection of farms
Farm – individual unit (you can make your own decision. LS – the community makes the decision
Questions from the participants
For small water shed concept this can apply. This doesn’t apply for larger water shed
The more you need to negotiation you have tradeoff. The bigger the context you have to negotiate more.
On small watershed level the zoning and objectives might apply but when it come to larger watershed this concept doesn’t apply. E.g. take the Blue Nile. Even in the smaller water shed. In the upland areas it depends on how you manage your land.
Within the small water shed agro-ecology matters.
Relate with RWM – it depends on the users. Whatever kind of disciplines it is defined it should be integrated.
What participants learned from the tool:
1st presenter:
Looked about water harvesting
The only considered factor affecting WH is RDT and there are other factors
Water bodies
Ground water
Slope and rainfall should be included – level areas
Presence of rainfall.
Very interesting and good tool
No big mistake – we’ll see it
2nd presenter:
Manageable and friendly for those who even don’t have GIS knowledge
It doesn’t produce classes/gradients 0 and 1 type of mapping
It is highly expert based – unless the person knows the area it is difficult to generate map
On selection of the factors e.g. in the apple suitability mapping – forest was taken as a criteria which is not practical
Selection of criteria requires intense knowledge
3rd presenter:
Have seen crop mango 3500-4000 rainfall for 1500 to 2500 mm and tried to map and got empty.
4th presenter
Simple tool
I tried to assess possible areas took slope < …rainfall < 1000 elevation < 2,000 meters and most areas are located in the mid lands and uplands. It doesn’t identify that. And I don’t like the map. I know there is a good potential. It identifies only the western part of the basin.
5th presenter
It was a good opportunity to learn this tool
It needs earlier knowledge of technical terms and I can produce my map easily
Selecting many layers would increase functionality and effectiveness of the tool
A layer can’t be too things at the same time
6th presenter
It allows two options. It should have a different ranks but it only have two options.
7th presenter
Useful for regional planning for the scale is sharp
Lot of strengths having this layers
The soils should be in the list is what I find is strong – having all the soils is important
Concerns
The ground water layer – have seen several maps are (the possible combinations ) am not sure how much reliable they are
Soil – topographic index – it showed all the potential areas for irrigation has been mapped as multi purpose trees.
It is important to add help in the program to distribute to different people. Help within the system. It has sample data but in order to use the software we need to have a help icon.
8th presenter
There has to be some icons – to give more elaboration about the tools
The tool is good but we have to go through each layer to see and give comments
9th presenter
Good tool
Types of the practices and I don’t have any knowledge of thresholds it was a bit difficult for me and it needs expertize
10th presenter
Very impressive – integrated water shed mgt.
It needs little knowledge. Who is compiling this data at the back end and what data is this system using
It needs a profound knowledge – all the layers we’re using are GIS layers
The software is desk top based application and can we apply it on the web.
11th presenter
Look at it from the side of decision making
Fascinated by the tool
Agree that in order to use this tools I need to have confidence in what comes out
It is not the problem of the tool
Google effect – and get out nothing
Two key words will bring me something
If you go along developing it – is to allow to use it for different decision making process
It helps to get ownership and decision making.
It needs to have the option to make the system confident
12th presenter
Tool is friendly and simple
It needs care – when I put mango for analysis I gave rainfall layer and have given the values from 1800 for layer and the produced map comes empty which is true
This tool needs quality data making the result good
Questions from participants
It is important tool but for us to decide to use it or not we have to understand the details of the data. (reliable data). Work over this very carefully. There may be some mistakes like in the ground detail.
Do you have any plan to add any hydrological components on this?
Session after the coffee break:
Discussion points:
What works where?
Why doesn’t it happen on the ground and what needs to be done at the policy level or on the ground to make it happen?
So why is it that most places don’t have rain water management despite the tools and the guidelines?
Answer
Socio economics and politics.
Appropriate/good policies
We have a good policy but the problem is awareness is not created at community level as well as capacity
Development agents don’t have the water harvesting technologies. E.g in Jeldu
Infrastructure like market
Tenure insecurity – so that they can invest on their lands
Land holding size
GTZ sponsored soil and water conservation practice – the first failure is based on the technical capacity of the soil conservation activities. Professionals themselves are not capable of soil and water practices.
Application of the models on the soil and water conservation practices. No understanding of the water systems.
The mis-implimention of by-laws. Which is not binding. And the community doesn’t have sense of ownership
What should be done to address these problems:
Train the people – but be able upgrade their mind freedom. Learn some practices from China
Binding by laws at regional and national level. The keblle doesn’t understand the law and can’t force the people
The strategy of implementation needs to be changed
Through matching fund from food security.
Awareness raising within the farmers
What would be the message to go out to policy makers (endorsing guidelines)
There are a lot of technologies and there are no guidelines that are approved in land and water management
We have a model in Ethiopia – crop releasing committee – and livestock technologies there are committees that approve the technologies at national level
We should develop a guideline/system which has no registration and guidelines
From this thematic group we have to raise this question. Otherwise the popular technologies like BBM but nobody knows which parameters is standard. They should be registered and a data with them.
From our thematic group we can raise this issue
Who is responsible for approving these technologies
Community water shed mgt. guidelines (Charlotte)
Manuals for conservation agriculture for water shed mgt. which is published by MoA. Why are they not used at Kebele level.
There are extension agents which are trained in agriculture? Why is it that these guidelines that already exist not being used? What is the problem – regardless of the tools
Answer from participants:
These guidelines are available even at woreda level – 6-7 years back.
When I work I found the Amharic version which is very well articulated
But they can’t implement because of the approach and there is not controlling mechanism even for the experts. They have it and know it but they’re not implementing it accordingly.
Question for Dr. Birru
Is it possible to have standards. E.g. in Amhara region where there is very complicated social and land system –
Answer from Dr. Birru:
Guidelines which is participatory. The problem is when it goes to the woreda level it doesn’t tell which technology is applicable to which area. Which technology where. Walk at is a good tool. That is the problem of this guideline
We have to tell which technologies applies where to which soil to which rain condition
Standard – if we develop a technology like BBM it must have a parameter that explains the BBM which has its own characteristics. Descriptions are needed for each technology. Clear description of what the technology is and where to apply it.
Answer from another participants
It needs a participatory approach which requires a lot of budget
The budget is a constraint
The government wants to show impact and they’re following a campaign approach.
DA’s are not professional contributing – and they’re doing campaign approach
There is a mis-match b/n the guidelines and the way the gov.t is implementing the guidelines
Leaders are changing (turn over of experts and leadership)
Political commitment for the system should be there.
High turn over. E.g. in Gonder 60% are in contract agreement and permanent staff have already left and staff are on contract staff
There is a political commitment but they’re not using the system which needs budget and staff.
Even if the guidelines is there, planning were top down. There is poor spatial knowledge. When planning at woreda level they used it indiscriminately. There must be selection of technologies based on landscape. When you go down the knowledge of the environment is an issue. So, they just use one technology for all.
Even if this guidelines are there, for example BBM has been applied in the wrong place. There is a quota type of distribution of technologies. Farmers are using wrong technologies at the wrong place.
Guideline is not an issue. The capacity to use it is a problem which is loss of commitment from decision makers.
It is good to have some exposure from other countries like China.
The decision makers are not dedicated – and the community is not dedicated as well.
Community doesn’t show a tangible result.
The major problem is not in the guideline but the guidelines are good enough to be implemented. But there is technical capacity limitation
Why do the extension workers and DA’s leave ?
Charlotte explain her Vietnam experience.
Some reasons from participants
Living in the countryside without electricity, water , TV and telephone may be difficult so they leave even without securing another job (facilities in the rural areas especially for the ones who went form the urban areas)
There is heavy work load. They have to travel long distances – complain of kidney sickness
Poverty is the main reason for the turn over
There is expansion of universities and DA’s want to go to the small towns. They go to small towns to attend the course and many are attending distance education so they leave.
The salary is not satisfactory at all level so they go to NGO’s. Staff retention at all levels especially for the civil servants is an issue.
Question No. 1: Is this kind of event useful?
All the participants said that this kind of event is very useful
Question no. 2: How could it be more useful?
Make it user friendly – e.g soil
The problem of the designer shouldn’t be the problem of the user
The database should be known by the users
Completion of the meta data
Need to have help document as an icon on the software like a standard software format
Should be replicable to other systems
This system needs prior knowledge of GIS.
Very shallow GIS application and map reading knowledge are mandatory
Question No. 3: Is it useful to do this kind of event again? How can it be institutionalized with an external facilitator?
It is good to have institution as a focal point but the TWG is important and ideas get matured here and go to the national platform. So focal institutions are needed.
How much are we sure of – the problem of open source software’s is it stops at some point? How do we make it sustainable for the users
Question No. 4: If there were no resources would somebody come to these meeting?
E.g. for different associations people contribute if the association has a clear objective
Giving the group some official status may help
Question No. 5: Support – after NBDC ends are there other types of resources – who else could the group approach to get the resources?
STC is a possibility
Collaborate with SLM Ethiopia if they believe in this TWG
There will be events in the coming months for further discussion. Search for resources when this program is over. The bigger platform won’t function without the TWG.
4 Questions were raised to the participants:
Discuss in two groups?
Reporting back
1st question; What is rainwater management?
2nd question: Examples of rainwater management practices?
3rd question : Can you define farm and landscape scale?
Questions from the participants
What participants learned from the tool:
1st presenter:
2nd presenter:
3rd presenter:
4th presenter
5th presenter
6th presenter
7th presenter
Concerns
8th presenter
9th presenter
10th presenter
11th presenter
12th presenter
Questions from participants
Session after the coffee break:
Discussion points:
Answer
What should be done to address these problems:
What would be the message to go out to policy makers (endorsing guidelines)
Community water shed mgt. guidelines (Charlotte)
Manuals for conservation agriculture for water shed mgt. which is published by MoA. Why are they not used at Kebele level.
There are extension agents which are trained in agriculture? Why is it that these guidelines that already exist not being used? What is the problem – regardless of the tools
Answer from participants:
Question for Dr. Birru
Answer from Dr. Birru:
Answer from another participants
Why do the extension workers and DA’s leave ?
Charlotte explain her Vietnam experience.
Some reasons from participants
Question No. 1: Is this kind of event useful?
Question no. 2: How could it be more useful?
Question No. 3: Is it useful to do this kind of event again? How can it be institutionalized with an external facilitator?
Question No. 4: If there were no resources would somebody come to these meeting?
Question No. 5: Support – after NBDC ends are there other types of resources – who else could the group approach to get the resources?